So this is the new rallying cry, is it? “No men in women’s bathrooms.”

Well I happen to agree. A man has no right in a public women’s bathroom. What I disagree on is their definition of man and woman, male and female.

It continues to sadden me that certain segments of the Christian population are spearheading this attack on the safety of transgender people. But what saddens me particularly today is the blatant disregard for truth by these Christians. Love of the truth should be one of the hallmarks of a Christian.

The word “truth” occurs 117 times in the Old Testament and 118 times in the considerably shorter New Testament. It is a major theme in the Gospel of John and John’s epistles.

For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ. – John 1:17

God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth. – John 4:24

And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. – John 8:32

Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. – John 14:6

Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you. – John 14:17

Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. – John 16:13

Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth. – John 17:17

I have not written unto you because ye know not the truth, but because ye know it, and that no lie is of the truth. – 1st John 2:21

My little children, let us not love in word, neither in tongue; but in deed and in truth. And hereby we know that we are of the truth, and shall assure our hearts before him. – 1st John 3:18-19

John was not the only New Testament writer to deal with truth. Here are some verses from Paul’s epistles.

[Charity] Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth; – 1st Corinthians 13:6

But [we] have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man’s conscience in the sight of God. – 2nd Corinthians 4:2

For we can do nothing against the truth, but for the truth. – 2nd Corinthians 13:8

Wherefore putting away lying, speak every man truth with his neighbour: for we are members one of another. – Ephesians 4:25

(For the fruit of the Spirit is in all goodness and righteousness and truth;) – Ephesians 5:9

And still more verses from the New Testament:

Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures. – James 1:18

But if ye have bitter envying and strife in your hearts, glory not, and lie not against the truth. – James 3:14

Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren, see that ye love one another with a pure heart fervently: – 1st Peter 1:22

Now what truth does this segment of Christianity ignore, deny and dispute?

They dispute our personal testimony. Even with conservative estimates of the frequency of transgenderism, hundreds of thousands of people in the United States and millions around the world claim that this is our story, our experience, our reality. It is the testimony of little children whose lives are improved when they are allowed to live in their true gender identity. It is the testimony of people of my generation, baby boomers, who tried to repress and deny the truth about ourselves even more than our opponents do. But our identities persisted despite everything we did. It is the testimony of many fine, upstanding citizens and many whose potential is untapped because of discrimination. It is the testimony of Christians like me who have and continue to proclaim Christ, tenaciously holding onto our faith in the face of every attack we have received from those who claim to speak for the church and for Christ.

The ignore the danger that transgender people face every day because of bigotry and hatred against us. They ignore the horrific murder rate against transgender people, a rate that is most likely even higher than reported in a world where many murders are reported with the transgender identity of the victim hidden behind rejected name and gender; where there are many countries (e.g. Russia and China) where our very existence is denied. They ignore the even greater danger we would face if forced to use spaces based on our gender assigned at birth rather than our true gender.

They outright lie about transgender people being a danger. Earlier this month, a sheriff with 41 years of law enforcement experience unequivocally gave testimony to the legislature of his state that he has “never heard of a transgender person attacking or otherwise bothering someone in a restroom. This is a non-issue.” This is not a sheriff in the liberal Northeast or California. This is Leon Lott, Richland County (SC) Sheriff since 1996. His county includes the state capital, Columbia, so he serves in a populated area. In addition, any law enforcement official at his level is going to keep up-to-date on crime trends and issues outside of his own area, especially once the issue rises to the be on the front burner in his state and around the country. The plain truth is that of the jurisdictions that have passed laws protecting the right of transgender people to use bathrooms consistent with their innate gender, laws that have been in place for many years in some cases, there have been ZERO problems. In addition, when transgender people are in public, we have to use restrooms. So even in locales where such protections don’t exist, we fearfully use the restroom that corresponds to our identity. Again there have been ZERO problems.

They dispute the preponderance of learned opinion of the medical community, in the American Medical Association, the American Psychiatric Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics. They were very willing to accept their findings decades ago when these groups had little to go on in the way of research and real life experience. But with nearly three full generations of evidence at hand (and more being gathered), these respected organizations have updated their opinions and protocols based on the enlightenment gathered from their findings. Somehow in our opponents mind, without evidence, this is all a plot. Instead, they lean on discredited studies, discredited psychiatrists, rogue organizations and misrepresentation of valid studies. (I’m old enough to have lived through this before. I can remember when rock ‘n roll was supposedly a communist plot.)

They often lie and hide their true motive for waging this battle. But not always. With a debate version of three-card monte, they deftly shift from reason to reason behind their legislation and umbrage. When the moral/Biblical argument is rejected, they shift to the need to protect women as the purpose. When that argument is countered, then it becomes a matter of a right to privacy: balancing the rights of transgender people against that of cisgender women.

As far as the moral/Biblical argument, I will touch upon that in the next bullet point. As far as the protection argument, I have already shown that to be a canard. But I will take it one step further. There is a group known to be a danger primarily to women and children. They are the people on the sex offender list. Where is their hue and cry about such people being allowed to use public bathrooms? And as far as transgender protection laws opening the door for perverts to take advantage of it (recently parroted by Curt Schilling, among others), not only doesn’t it happen, they (many of whom are staunch 2nd Amendment defenders) would never apply the same rationale to strict gun control measures just because a small minority of people in our society actually do carry out horrific violence using firearms.

As far as the privacy argument, the only bathrooms I have ever seen where the stalls had no doors was in men’s locker rooms. (I hated them. I avoided using them whenever I could.) A naked cisgender woman in a public women’s bathroom would likely receive a negative response unless it was a clear case of a medical problem. I have never seen someone in a public bathroom whose genitals were in plain sight unless they were on the changing table. In spaces where nudity is more likely to be involved, the topic is more sensitive. (I never totally disrobe when I go to my gym, and there are private changing stalls if I ever would need to.) But even here, social custom is changing for reasons other than transgender. When I went to my 40th college reunion two years ago (Cornell), the dorm where my class was housed is a coed dorm. Most of the student rooms do not have private bathrooms. The common bathrooms (including showers) are also coed. This is a growing trend according to what I have read.

They distort or err on what the Bible says on the topic of transgender. I have written many blog posts countering their arguments (in conjunction with all the medical evidence that has been gathered on the nature of transgenderism). The short version is that very little can be found in the Bible on the topic and the term is not found in the Holy Scriptures. Of course, there are many modern terms (e.g. democracy and republic) that are not found there, either. The closest we can come is when Jesus describes three types of eunuchs in Matthew 19:12. The person who is born a eunuch could describe a number of situations, including someone who is transgender. Most importantly, Jesus does not condemn any of the three examples, consistent with many instances in which the new and better covenant is more inclusive than the old. And as to whether God defines us by our mind/spirit or our body parts, I have shown by many verses the preponderance of evidence that He identifies us by our mind/spirit.

Please understand that this is not a transgender vs Christianity issue, nor should it be. I and a number of friends are evidence that a person can be both. And I have many devout conservative Christians in my life who are accepting and supportive.

I know full well that there are a number of topics on which Christians are in disagreement. And there is always room for honest disagreement. But what hurts the most is the vitriol directed by this segment of the Christian population at the transgender community. And even if Christianity has come under attack from some segments of the transgender community (and I will not descend into a “who started it” black hole), Christians are not supposed to return evil for evil. We are called to a higher purpose.

Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God: Even as I please all men in all things, not seeking mine own profit, but the profit of many, that they may be saved. – 1st Corinthians 10:32-33

When you read the many verses earlier in my post, you may have noticed a connection between truth and a loving attitude. (If not, look again.) Even if the segment of Christians who I have called out in this post earnestly believe what they are preaching about transgender people, all Christians are admonished to be “… speaking the truth in love …” (Ephesians 4:15).

Romans 14 discusses Christian liberty versus causing a weaker brother to stumble by unwisely exercising that liberty. But it also deals with how Christians should treat each other in terms of areas where there are controversies or areas of honest doctrinal disagreement.

In Paul’s day, the church in Rome was dealing with differences between the Jewish converts and the Gentile converts regarding permissible foods and the observance of the Jewish holy days. But today, the topics could have just as easily been about tongues or methods of baptism.

1Himthat is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations.2Forone believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs.3Letnot him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him.4Whoart thou that judgest another man’s servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand.5Oneman esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.6Hethat regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks.7Fornone of us liveth to himself, and no man dieth to himself.8Forwhether we live, we live unto the Lord; and whether we die, we die unto the Lord: whether we live therefore, or die, we are the Lord’s.9Forto this end Christ both died, and rose, and revived, that he might be Lord both of the dead and living.10Butwhy dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.11Forit is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.12Sothen every one of us shall give account of himself to God.13Letus not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother’s way.

In verse 1, the phrase “doubtful disputations” does not translate easily into modern English. But it is an important phrase to understand Romans 14. In Greek, the phrase is dialogismos diakrisis. In the first word, we can see the root word “dialog”. In Greek, it can be used to describe a person thinking things through on one’s own, to deliberate within oneself. But when more than one person is involved, it can mean a discussion about what’s true when there is doubt about which one of two positions is the correct one. At its most intense, it can mean disputing or arguing.

The second word is based on the word from which we get the English word, “crisis”. In Greek, it means to judge or separate. The prefix comes from the Greek word for “two” and in this case would mean “between”. So it means to be judging between two things: two discern or distinguish between them.

A concise way of translating it might be “to not dispute beliefs”. But it would not be just any two beliefs. Paul is not talking about a dispute which is clearly settled by Scripture: for example, a dispute between a person who believes there is one God and a person who does not believe in the existence of God. So what Paul is really saying here is to avoid engaging in doctrinal disputes with a weaker brother or sister. (Paul’s teaching here does not preclude a debate between two mature Christian scholars on a matter of theology.)

In verses 2-6, Paul touches upon the two main dividing points faced by the church in Rome: the eating of meat and the observance of days. There were a few issues intertwined regarding which foods were acceptable. First of all, despite the teaching that resulted from Peter’s vision (Acts 10:9-16) there were still some Jewish Christians who held to the Mosaic Law regarding clean and unclean animals. In addition, as Paul also dealt with in 1st Corinthians 8, it was the practice in the Greco-Roman world that some meat sold in the marketplace had first been sacrificed or consecrated to idols. In Acts 15:29, one of the four restrictions placed on Gentile converts to Christianity was to abstain from eating meats sacrificed to idols. Moreover, none of the meat sold by the worshippers of idols (and possibly Gentile Christians as well) would have been handled according to the law and therefore would also be considered unclean.

Now some of the Christians we deal with today might immediately assume that it was the stronger, more mature and more doctrinally learned Christians who kept the stricter observance. Not so, according to the text. Note that in verse two, Paul writes that is the one who is weak who will only eat herbs (vegetables). The more mature Christian, grounded in the faith, knows the latitude granted by Christian liberty. The weaker Christian who lacks understanding keeps far from whatever limits there might be, lest he cross the line. In fact, he may impose stricter limits on himself. In the same way, the Christian who esteems one day above the others is taking the stricter observance and therefore the weaker of the two.

Also we should note that Paul is not talking about a strict division between the Jewish Christians and the Gentile Christians. Not once in this lesson does he make such a distinction, while he is perfectly willing to do so in other Scripture passages. Indeed we can surmise that members of each group populated the ranks of both the stronger and the weaker.

Paul is also admonishing the church over the form and nature of those disputes. In verses 3&4 and again in verse 10, he admonished both weak and strong for their reactions to the other. He admonished the weaker Christians for appointing themselves as judges over the stronger Christians because the stronger were failing to follow their stricter standards. And he admonished the stronger Christians for despising or being contemptuous of the weaker Christians for remaining more wedded to the law, for trusting neither themselves nor the Lord’s teaching sufficiently to exercise their liberty in Christ.

I was the younger of two children, so I merely observed this next point. Those of you who were the older in a dispute with a younger sibling might remember chafing under the following admonition. Because when your parents stepped in between a silly quarrel you and your younger sibling were having, they might scold the younger first. But then they turned to you with the words, “… and you are older: you should know better.” Ouch!

Paul is telling the stronger Christians, in effect, that instead of despising, they should be patiently teaching and nurturing the weaker Christians to greater liberty, not despising or mocking them because they do not yet embrace that liberty nor feel comfortable enough within themselves to step out into it. As they are more bound to the law, were we not once also? As they lack confidence, were we not at one time shaky in our faith, too?

Verses 7-9: here we have a reminder from Paul that none of us are on our own. Rather, we are the Lord’s and Christ died for that very reason, so that whether we are alive or dead, we belong to Him. We neither belong to ourselves nor to each other. Because this point is central to Paul’s argument, he places it in the middle of the point he is making in verses 3,4&10. Both the weaker and the stronger are finding fault with the other. But this is the Lord’s job, not ours.

After Paul reiterates his admonishment in verse 10 to neither judge nor despise each other, in verses 11 and 12, he expands on the idea of how we will all eventually stand before the Lord and give account of ourselves to the most righteous Judge. Therefore, he tells us in verse 13, that instead of judging and finding fault with each other over such matters, we ought instead be judging whether or not we are placing stumbling blocks in the way of each other’s Christian walk.

I trust that most Christians would agree with the general principle that we ought not put stumbling blocks in the way of each other as we exercise our faith. But doesn’t Paul say to the church in Corinth (1st Corinthians 5 & 6) that the church needs to judge those within the church (as opposed to being concerned with judging those outside the church, whom indeed the Lord will judge)? I quote here Matthew Henry’s commentary on Romans 14 for a precise answer on the matter (italicized notes within his comments removed so the reading will flow clearer for better understanding).

Take this for a general rule; spend your zeal in those things wherein you and all the people of God are agreed, and do not dispute about matters that are doubtful. [B]id him welcome, receive him with the greatest affection and tenderness; to help him, to fetch him to you, to encourage him. Receive him into your company, and converse, and communion, entertain him with readiness and condescension, and treat him with all possible endearments. Receive him: not to quarrel with him, and to argue about uncertain points that are in controversy, which will but confound him, and fill his head with empty notions, perplex him, and shake his faith. Let not your Christian friendship and fellowship be disturbed with such vain janglings and strifes of words. “[N]ot to pump out his weak sentiments concerning those things which he is in doubt about, that you may censure and condemn him.’’ Receive him, not to expose him, but to instruct and strengthen him.

Look back at what I wrote about verse 1. In Romans 14, Paul is not writing about doctrinal issues that can be clearly resolved by looking at Scripture which addresses the issue in a straightforward manner. In 1st Corinthians 5 & 6, he is. Nowhere in Scripture can one find support for the idea that a man should be having sex with his stepmother. Yet this was the precise sin that the church in Corinth was tolerating.

On the contrary in Rome, neither the weaker or stronger Christians were sinning by the strictness or lack of strictness in their individual practice regarding meat or days. The sin was in the way they were ill-treating each other over the issue.